Bo Strangert

2. Design and implementation of 'system inspection.'

of work environment

This early project took advantage of the previous control-theoretic approach to organizational intervention in a healthcare context, whereas the new development object was very different. ¹

The task concerned the design and implementation of a method for governmental inspections of employers' work environment management according to new legal provisions (Internal Control of the Working Environment, IK, AFS 1996:6, and a still operative revision, Systematic Work Environment Management, SAM, AFS 2001:1). During the 1990s, we cooperated closely with two inspection districts of the former National Swedish Board of Occupational Safety and Health to develop a new approach to supervision.

The provisions stipulate the employer's responsibility and requirement to investigate, carry out and follow up activities to prevent ill-health and accidents and achieve a satisfactory working environment. Some basic principles include that systematic management shall be "a natural part of day-to-day activities" and" give the employees and safety delegates  … possibility of participating."… Further, there has to be a work environment policy and allocation of tasks and knowledge to other managers and employees about how to work according to SAM (IK). The core provisions involve a control loop to be conducted regularly: risk assessment, measures, and follow-ups.

Figure 1. Provisions forming a control loop.

Which were the alternative inspection designs at issue for the authority? ²  One common administrative form was to inspect whether each particular provision was satisfied or not at a workplace — a sort of specific judicial check-list method! However, it was congruent with the traditional way of inspecting the physical working environment conditions and, therefore, accessible and tempting to implement. Another inspection alternative, Focus inspection, chose an effect-based perspective by using panels of employees to report shortcomings in their working environment. This perspective was motivated by the increasing concern about psychosocial problems at workplaces.

By contrast, we used a cognitive perspective on the inspection task by focussing on the employer's capability to coordinate systematic management of the work environment with ordinary business management. That is a mental challenge for the employer. There was also uncertainty about employers' possibly reluctant attitude to the new responsibilities. Consequently, our approach was to design an inspection method that: (1) tries to enable unity between the two control systems, i.e., makes them into" natural parts," (2) advocates a general but straightforward explanatory control model for risk assessment, measures, and follow-up, (3) supports the manager with communicative tools for participative management. Later in practice, this coordination approach was very well received by most employers. 

However, from the beginning, we were aware of the big challenge for inspectors experienced in inspecting specific environmental conditions to inspect various complex control systems. Hence, a new PSI inspection strategy, project-supported system inspection, was designed and thoroughly tested in experimental simulations and natural settings (Strangert & Andersson, 1996, 1998). PSI involves a complementary control cycle prescribed by the provisions, where existing or possible risks of work environment consequences are exposed for critical assessment, planning, measures, and follow-up in parallel with the planning and management of the activities.

During an inspection event, an employer shall report and eliminate possible working environment risks. The communication between the employer, safety delegates, and the inspector uses a visual display of the control loop of coordinated SAM (IK) provisions and the manager's plan of activities. 

A PSI inspection requires first that the inspector makes advanced judgments of whether the employer's reported arrangement to eliminate risks is relevant and would be achievable. The inspector must judge possible incongruences between planned or taken actions and the requirements according to SAM (IK). It presupposes that the inspector has sufficient knowledge about the business and is skilled in observation and interpretation. Second, if needed, the inspector shall be able to instruct the employer about suitable ways to establish an effective control system according to the provisions. However, the employer should address detailed questions about applications to occupational health services or other expert assistance.

We started with extensive case studies of principal inspection methodology in close cooperation with two regional inspection districts (Strangert 1994a,b). We used qualitative methods to describe the configuration of objective data about various workplace environments, management, inspection events, and subjective reports from the participants in inspection transactions. The general case study method included all significant moments during an inspection during the whole period of PSI implementation (Strangert, 1998, 2000). The results were interpreted and transferred into simulations of critical moments with experienced inspectors as participants. Wikman (2004) has summarized the experimental simulations. 

Since the population of inspectors had no experience in inspecting control systems, we developed an elaborate training program based on case studies in connection with the design of PSI (e.g., Wikman,1996; Strangert & Wågman, 1997). The first sample of inspectors who passed the tests was observed and judged during actual inspections. Subsequently, the PSI training included inspectors and new employees from all districts. 

Generally, experienced inspectors were soon able to conduct qualified PSI inspections.

However, the demands were too high for a significant minority of trainees. The causes involved coping with the diversity of workplaces or the incapability of making complex judgments. Those problems aroused questions about the possible incongruence between the authority's recruitment policy and its ambition to introduce advanced regulations. Another interesting issue in this project involved the coordination between the Labour Law regulation of the employer ́s right to direct and allocate work and the Provisions on Systematic Work Environment Management. Furthermore, the persistent demands from stress researchers for actions against psychological and social problems at work prompted the authority to prepare new challenging provisions about that issue with consequences for inspection procedures. Strangert (2000a, chap.2) commented on this important topic.³

^{_______________________________________________________________________________________}

¹ See Inducing holistic strategies for elderly and long-term patients.

² See On concept development and modeling – in contexts of supervision.

On the choice of "perspectives" when investigating complex phenomena.

On forming perspectives for innovative project planning. Examples from projects on supervision. 

³ A special sequel of the present project was a request from the Swedish Work Environment Authority for an expert opinion. See R&D in miscellaneous projects: Granskning av forskningsstöd och tillsynsbarhet för förslaget 2003-06-16. Föreskrifter om sociala och psykologiska arbetsmiljöförhållanden.

References in chronological order

Strangert, B. (Red). (1994a). Fallstudier av yrkesinspektionens systemtillsyn. (Case studies of system supervision by labour inspection.) Rapport 1/1994, Forskargruppen för kommunikationspsykologi, Umeå Universitet.

Strangert, B. (1994b). Att utvärdera internkontroll - En förstudie av metodiken vid systemtillsyn. (Assessing internal control – A pilot study of the method of system supervision.) Rapport 2/1994, Forskargruppen för kommunikatiionspsykologi, Umeå Universitet.

Strangert, B. & Andersson, W. (1996). Projektstödd systeminspektion. Program för kompetensutveckling och lokalt utvecklingsarbete. (Project supported system inspection. Program for training and local development). Rapport 1/1996. Forskargruppen för kommunikationspsykologi, Umeå Universitet.

Wikman, J. (1996). Analysis of complex communication tasks. Umeå Psychological Supplement Reports, No.1. Umeå University, Department of Psychology, and an M.A. Hanson (Ed.) Contemporary Ergonomics 1998. Taylor & Francis.

Strangert, B., Wikman, J. & Strangert, C. (1996). Analysis of communication strategies in systems inspection. Umeå Psychological Supplement Reports, No.1. Umeå University, Department of Psychology.

Wikman, J. & Strangert, B. (1996). Task uncertainty in systems assessment. Umeå Psychological Supplement Reports, No.1. Umeå University, Department of Psychology.

Wågman, L. (1997). Assessment of coordination between production and working environment activities. Umeå Psychological Supplement Reports, No.2. Umeå University, Department of Psychology.

Wågman, L. (1997). Discourse analysis of the interaction between management and labor inspector in systems inspections. Umeå Psychological Supplement Reports, No.2. Umeå University, Department of Psychology.

Strangert, B. & Wågman, L. (1997). Strategies of diagnosing an incongruous control system. Umeå Psychological Supplement Reports, No.2. Umeå University, Department of Psychology.

Wikman, J. (1998). Task design supported by communication analysis. In G.Johansson (Ed.) Proceedings of the Nordic Ergonomics Society Annual Conference: Communication at work. Lund KFS AB.

Strangert, B. & Andersson, W. (1998). Introduktion till projektstödd systeminspektion (PSI). (Introduction to project supported system inspection.) Rapport 1/1998. Forskargruppen för kommunikationspsykologi, Umeå Universitet.

Wågman, L. & Strangert, B. (1999). Coordination between competing control systems. In J. Axelsson, J. Eklund & B. Bergman (Eds). Proceedings of the International Conference on TQM and Human Factors: towards successful integration. Vol.2 Linköpings Universitet: Centrum för studier av människa, teknik och organisation.

Strangert, B. (2000a). Studier av yrkesinspektionens metodik vid systeminspektion av internkontroll. (Studies of the labour inspection’s methodology at system inspection of internal control.) Rapport 1/2000. Forskargruppen för kommunikationspsykologi, Umeå Universitet.

Wikman, J. (2004). Simulation of communicative behavior. The Luleå University of Technology. Department of Human Work Sciences. Division of Engineering Psychology.

Participants in project 2 (1994-2004)

Mikael Andersson, Weine Andersson, Ulf Alfredsson, Lilly Beijar, Lauritz Brännström, Arne Dahlberg, Kerstin Forsman, Patrik Jonsson, Elisabet Kullander, Rune Lindberg (Director of the inspection district in Umeå), Mårten Lindgren, Bo Strangert (project leader), Christine Strangert, Helena Holmström-Strehlenert, Anita Strömbäck, Peter Sundqvist, Erik Sälg, Ulla-Britt Tillman, Leif Wågman, Jonas Wikman, Inga Åkerlind, Elisabeth Åkerlund, Ulrika Öhman; the staffs at the inspection districts in Skövde and Umeå, trainee inspectors from other districts; 36 students with undergraduate theses on subprojects (see Dissertations and Undergraduate Theses |Work Environment Inspection & Management of Activities and Work Environment).

R&D funding

Arbetsmiljöfonden

Arbetsmiljöverket

Rådet för Arbetslivsforskning

__________________________________________________________________________________